Crouch was paraphrasing a portion of a nearly two-week interrogation he conducted here at the U.S. Navy base at Guantánamo Bay, in June 2002, around the time that FBI agents arranged Hamdan's first call home.

They let the Yemeni speak to his wife for up to 10 minutes with a satellite phone outside an interrogator trailer at Camp Delta. He told her for the first time that he was alive. Then he cried.

The driver appeared to pay intense attention to much of the testimony.

Thursday's session had ended 30 minutes early because guards passed a note to the military judge that Hamdan, 37, was running a fever. He went from the war court to the prison camps' hospital and was found ''in good health, with no acute medical conditions,'' said Navy Cmdr. Pauline Storum. Then he spent the night in his solitary steel-and-concrete cell.

Crouch cast the telephone call as a turning point.

The man accused of providing material support for terror and conspiracy in a six-year string of terror attacks, ''cried quite a bit,'' the FBI agent testified, and he began to tell his story more freely, particularly to a Lebanese-born FBI agent named Ali Soufan.

''Mr. Hamdan gave us a lot of good information,'' Crouch said, and was consistently ''polite'' and ``respectful.''

Interrogations became so congenial, Crouch said, that they brought him pizza and subs, and the Yemeni learned something every American teenager knows: McDonald's french fries ``are not good cold.''

quote:

Al-Bahri ultimately managed to recruit 35 men, mostly Yemenis like Hamdan, but they were stopped in Afghanistan before they could make it to Tajikistan. What happened next would change Hamdan's life forever. At loose ends and casting about for a cause, one of the jihadis suggested that they go see a man named Osama bin Laden. Hamdan's group soon found their way to bin Laden, arriving at his camp in the caves of Tora Bora only days before Ramadan, the holiest time of the year. For three days they listened to bin Laden preach about the religious imperative of reversing America's presence in the Persian Gulf and of changing the approach to fighting Islam's enemies. "[Bin Laden] said we must carry out painful attacks on the United States until it becomes like an agitated bull, and when the bull comes to our region, he won't be familiar with the land, but we will," al-Bahri told me.

Seventeen of the original 35 jihadis decided to stay. Hamdan was one of them. With only a fourth-grade education, Hamdan made himself useful as a mechanic and driver. He ultimately ended up serving bin Laden himself as a chauffeur and bodyguard, following the sheik when he relocated for security reasons to Tarnak Farms, a walled al-Qaeda compound 30 minutes outside Kandahar. According to both al-Bahri and FBI interrogator Ali Soufan, Hamdan had bin Laden's trust but was not a member of his inner circle. Both men describe Hamdan as deferential, eager to please. Their accounts differ, though, when it comes to Hamdan's level of involvement with al-Qaeda. Al-Bahri characterized him as a circumstantial participant, someone with limited options who just needed a job, while Soufan said he was undeniably part of the al-Qaeda conspiracy, pointing out that Hamdan swore a bayat, or oath of loyalty, to bin Laden.

In the days leading up to 9/11, Hamdan joined a small motorcade of al-Qaeda leaders, including bin Laden and his top lieutenant, Ayman al-Zawahiri, who drove into the mountains above Khost to watch the hijacked planes crash into the World Trade Center and the Pentagon on satellite TV. Hamdan was also at bin Laden's side — as a driver — in the weeks that followed, while the motorcade moved from one guesthouse to the next as bin Laden and al-Zawahiri readied their remaining fighters for America's imminent invasion.

In late November, with U.S. forces sweeping across Afghanistan, Hamdan returned to his home in Kandahar, one of the last Taliban strongholds, for his young daughter and pregnant wife, and drove them toward Pakistan. What happened next forms a central source of dispute between Hamdan and the government. According to his defense lawyers, Hamdan figured that he would be arrested if he tried to cross the border, so he instead dropped off his family and planned to return the car, which he had borrowed, before finding a different way into Pakistan. Soufan and government prosecutors say that Hamdan remained in Afghanistan to fight alongside al-Qaeda and the Taliban. Their account is corroborated by the fact that the Northern Alliance forces who captured Hamdan in Afghanistan hours after he left his family at the border found two surface-to-air missiles in the trunk of his car.

I'd say we had good reasons to detain him and I hope the government wins the case.

In response to Xaix's little tantrum in the other thread:

quote:

What the fuck?

It was peacetime. We have a war now, that we started. What kind of hypocritical nonsense is that?

This is the problem with your ilk, you're not useful in peacetime, so the solution is to get rid of peacetime. This is why we can't allow McCain to continue OMGTerror McFuckTheConstitution's reign.

He's become a total f'n puppet to his handlers, and I don't want to know who he'd be a puppet for as president. He's turned into a damn parody of McCain. It'd be nice to take McCain from 2k and bring him out here to whoop McCain 08's ass and give us a real campaign.

We didn't start the war in Afghanistan, so I have no idea what you are blabbering about. Have you forgotten why we invaded Afghanistan in the first place?

Other interesting article I stumbled upon about a freed Gitmo prisoner who became a suicide bomber in Iraq:

quote:

Captive Miranda, Lord knows I have not given a thought to the paperwork you sent me.

Let me tell you, Captive, that our release is not in the hands of the lawyers or the hands of America. Our release is in the hands of He who created us.

The poem, "To My Captive Lawyer, Miranda," was written by Abdullah Saleh Al-Ajmi while he was a detainee at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. No doubt, it would have given the former detainee, who was released in 2005, immense satisfaction to know that his last earthly deed was referenced in Justice Antonin Scalia's dissenting opinion in Boumediene v. Bush. That's the recent Supreme Court decision that gave Guantanamo detainees the constitutional right to challenge, in habeas corpus proceedings, whether they were properly classified by the military as enemy combatants.

Abdullah Saleh Al-Ajmi, on the left, in a martyrdom video posted on an al Qaeda Web site. Al-Ajmi, a 29-year-old Kuwaiti, blew himself up in one of several coordinated suicide attacks on Iraqi security forces in Mosul this year. Originally reported to have participated in an April attack that killed six Iraqi policemen, a recent martyrdom video published on a password-protected al Qaeda Web site indicates that Al-Ajmi carried out the March 23 attack on an Iraqi army compound in Mosul. In that attack, an armored truck loaded with an estimated 5,000 to 10,000 pounds of explosives rammed through a fortified gate, overturned vehicles in its path and exploded in the center of the compound. The huge blast ripped the façade off three apartment buildings being used as barracks, killing 13 soldiers from the 2nd Iraqi Army division and seriously wounding 42 others.

...

quote:

It is easy to imagine the detainees' attorneys, upon first arriving at Guantanamo in 2004, earnestly explaining to their incredulous clients how the Miranda warning works. Incredulous, because detainees would certainly grasp that extending the full array of Fifth and Sixth Amendment rights to unlawful enemy combatants would have a devastating effect on vital intelligence-gathering efforts. Indeed, lawyers have already become part of the al Qaeda tool kit. When Khalid Sheikh Mohammed was apprehended in Pakistan in 2003 and handed over to the U.S., he reportedly told his initial interrogators, "I'll talk to you guys when you take me to New York and I can see my lawyer."

After the Boumediene decision, that is no longer an empty threat. While Justice Anthony Kennedy stated in his 5-4 majority opinion that detainees are entitled to habeas review in the federal courts, he failed to expressly outline what legal standards the government would have to meet for detainee cases to pass constitutional muster. Many legal experts contend that if the habeas lawyers succeed in attaining for detainees the same degree of procedural rights as those extended to ordinary criminal defendants in domestic cases, "lawyering up" would mean the end of terrorist questioning, not the beginning.

...

quote:

But many in the detainees' home countries aren't welcoming them with open arms. The bombings carried out by Al-Ajmi and two other Kuwaiti nationals have stirred a public outcry from their fellow citizens. Al-Ajmi's own father has reportedly threatened to sue the government of Kuwait for issuing his son a passport and failing to live up to the terms set forth in the transfer agreement with U.S. State Department as a condition of his release. Kuwait's negligence and the State Department's failure to follow up have resulted in calls from the public for the detainees to stay right where they are and for Guantanamo to stay in operation.

"I believe the U.S. State Department knows the prisoners well, their way of thinking, and their plans after being released from prison," wrote Ali Ahmad Al-Baghli, Kuwait's former Minister of Oil, in the Arab Times after news of Al-Ajmi's suicide attack broke. He specifically criticized the outspoken leader of the Kuwaiti detainee families committee, Khalid Al-Odah, (interestingly, he is one of the "translators" Mr. Falkoff acknowledges in his poetry book), whose son remains at Guantanamo. Al-Odah hired a Washington, D.C., public-relations firm to "humanize" the detainees with sympathetic press.

"We cannot romanticize them into fallen heroes of Western neo-imperialism," wrote Shamael Al-Sharikh, a columnist for the Kuwaiti Times, in an article advocating that Guantanamo stay open, "because we are as much potential victims of terrorist attacks as [Americans] are."

quote:

As an example of where we might be headed after Boumediene, consider the situation in Britain. In June, Abu Qatada, a radical imam wanted in connection with bombing conspiracies in several countries, was released from jail after seven years of fighting his deportation. Qatada, whose recorded sermons were found in the Hamburg apartment of the 9/11 hijackers, was described by an immigration appeals commission as a "truly dangerous individual" who was "heavily involved, indeed at the center of terrorist activities associated with al-Qa'eda."

But judges in Britain will not extradite him to Jordan, where he was convicted in absentia, because his lawyers allege that the evidence against him might have been obtained by torture. Sending him packing under these circumstances, the court ruled, would violate the European Convention on Human Rights.

The result is a perverse situation in which, to protect the human rights of the man who issued a fatwa to kill the wives and children of Egyptian police and army officers, the British public pays a yearly tab of $1.1 million to cover Qatada's round-the-clock police surveillance, housing and welfare assistance for him, his wife and five children.

The following primary factors favor continued detention:A. Al Ajmi is a Taliban fighter: Al Ajmi went AWOL from the Kuwaiti military in order to travel to Afghanistan participate in the Jihad. Al Ajmi was issued an AK-47, ammunition and hand grenades by the Taliban. B. Al Ajmi participated in military operations against the coalition. Al Ajmi admitted he was in Afghanistan fighting with the Taliban in the Bagram area. Al Ajmi was placed in a defensive position by the Taliban in order to block the Northern Alliance. Al Ajmi admitted spending eight months on the front line at the Aiubi Center, Afghanistan. Al Ajmi admitted engaging in two or three fire fights with the Northern Alliance. Al Ajmi retreated to the Tora Bora region of Afghanistan and was later captured as he attempted to escape to Pakistan. C. Al Ajmi is committed to jihad. Al Ajmi went AWOL because he wanted to participate in the jihad in Afghanistan but could not get leave from the military. In Aug 2004, Al Ajmi wanted to make sure that when the case goes before the Tribunal, they know that he now is a Jihadist, an enemy combatant, and that he will kill as many Americans as he possibly can. D. Upon arrival at GTMO, Al Ajmi has been constantly in trouble. Al Ajmi's overall behavior has been aggressive and non-compliant, and he has resided in GTMO's disciplinary blocks throughout his detention. E. Based upon a review of recommendations from U.S. agencies and classified and unclassified documents, Al Ajmi is regarded as a continued threat to the United States and its Allies.

Broadly speaking, I am not shocked that some of the innocents we detained and released have become our enemies in the process.

Sir Everlast, do you concede that we may well have created enemies out of noncombatants at Guantanamo? Again speaking broadly, do you see that our "war on terror" may well be creating enemies faster than we can kill them?

Broadly speaking, I am not shocked that some of the innocents we detained and released have become our enemies in the process.

I am unaware of any innocents that we detained who have returned to the battlefield to fight us. In this case, the guy was a hard core jihadist who was let go for reasons I can't discern, and then went and killed members of the Iraqi Army, who had nothing to do with his original detention.

quote:

Again speaking broadly, do you see that our "war on terror" may well be creating enemies faster than we can kill them?

Certain actions in the WOT, mostly related to Iraq, have created enemies, notably Abu Gharib. There's a course taught called Mirror Image that one can apply for that teaches us to think like them and see things through their eyes. I have considerable experience in dealing with them and I understand how certain actions can be viewed, but I also keep in mind how they would treat us if the tables were turned. Overall, I'd say most of the trouble we've had PR wise has come from Iraq, and that along with the Bush Administration's terrible PR campaign, minus Tony Snow (RIP) is responsible. Take away Abu Gharib and no one (outside of the detainees and their sympathizers) would care. That's my two cents.

In case you hadn't noticed (which is a ridiculous idea, since you're willfully misinterpreting statements to make yourself not look like a fascist traitor) the war we were talking about in that thread, vis a vis McCain vs. Obama was Iraq.

Don't let that stop you from ranting about how awesome your secret prison is and how we should just listen to our nice overlords that want to protect us from knowing what the hell they're actually doing.

I'm a fan of transparent government, and of a justice system that's actually interested in justice. Fair trials must be open, and I'm immediately suspect of anyone and anything that subverts one of the founding principles of our nation.

But judges in Britain will not extradite him to Jordan, where he was convicted in absentia, because his lawyers allege that the evidence against him might have been obtained by torture.

Just one of many reasons why our flirtation with torture is a very bad idea, not just in a moral sense but a purely practical one.

Giving free legal ammunition to terrorists is not a sound strategy.

Other thoughts: Hamdan sounds like the prototypical hapless idiot who fell in with the wrong crowd. I wouldn't have shed a tear if he had eaten a Hellfire somewhere in Afghanistan, but trying to make the case that he's some kind of terrorist mastermind a la KSM (who should and hopefully will fry) so we can hand down thundering justice makes us look a little ridiculous.

We were attacked by a group operating out of Afghanistan with the tacit approval of the Taliban, who were running most of Afghanistan at the time.

We responded by attacking Al Quaeda and the Taliban in Afghanistan.

So while semantically I guess a pedant with a bad case of tunnel vision could argue we "started the war in Afghanistan," the situation is not that we went off and attacked the poor innocent Taliban for no reason

We were attacked by a group operating out of Afghanistan with the tacit approval of the Taliban, who were running most of Afghanistan at the time.

We responded by attacking Al Quaeda and the Taliban in Afghanistan.

So while semantically I guess a pedant with a bad case of tunnel vision could argue we "started the war [i]in[/] Afghanistan," the situation is not that we went off and attacked the poor innocent Taliban for no reason

Yeah, I have to agree here, as much as it pains me. SirE's arguments and reason have some amazing holes, but Afghanistan isn't one of them. We went after a specific group that had bases there, a group that attacked us.

No, this event called 9/11 happened, which was planned from Afghanistan by bin Laden. AQ members took over four airplanes and three of them crashed into BIG buildings. The other was crashed by the passengers during fighting with said terrorists. Overall, almost 3000 people were killed in one day. OBL was the leader of AQ. OBL was living in Afghanistan with the blessing and protection of the Taliban. Mullah Omar, the leader of the TB, was given a chance by President Bush to turn over OBL, close the numerous terrorist training camps, and release some of our citizens the TB was holding. He refused. We invaded. The rest is history.

quote:

I noticed you didn't mention Iraq in this little rebuttal. I'm sure that was an accident. Please, by all means, apply this same logic to that country.

Why should I? This is an OEF thread, no prisoners captured during OIF are held at Gitmo, so there's no need to mention it. There's a 260 page thread if you want to lament about it.

quote:

I wouldn't have shed a tear if he had eaten a Hellfire somewhere in Afghanistan, but trying to make the case that he's some kind of terrorist mastermind a la KSM

I agree that's he not on the level of KSM, but he had forewarning of 9/11, provided material support for OBL, and was transporting SA7 missiles. He doesn't need to ever see outside of a jail cell again, IMO.

The thread may be about Afghanistan, but his response was to a post about Iraq and Afghanistan from the previous thread. I figured it was fair game as he obviously intentionally only answered the portion of the question that was convenient.

Its such a good thing you got your guy in Waziristan. After all attacking a sovereign nation and killing innocent civilians as long as your quest for revenge is completed.

Well some one has to deal with AQ and the TB, and it sure isn't going to be your government. I've lost count on how many "peace" deals they've made with the TB and how many times the TB has felched on your government. Newsweek had one thing right -- Iraq isn't more dangerous nation on earth, It's Pakistan.

Hey, by all means, I'm here to learn as well. So, if in the unlikely case that a GTMO detainee who was NLEC'ed returned to the battlefield and was C/K, please bring it to my attention.

quote:

When people are released, the general assumption is that they were released because of their innocence. I find it very telling that this is NOT your assumption.

Nope. Many times they are released because we deemed them no longer a threat, due to statements they had made saying the had learned their lessons, as in case of Mr. Suicide bomber above, or sometimes their government reneges on agreements or sometimes we just make bad calls. If someone gets NLECed from GTMO, I feel pretty safe they never should have been there. Others releases are iffy.

quote:

The thread may be about Afghanistan, but his response was to a post about Iraq and Afghanistan from the previous thread.

Actually, it never was. The General election topic of GTMO began with I won't give money to McCain because of his GTMO stance and denigrated into a defense of GTMO. I was asked by the mods to take it elsewhere, so I did. OIF and GTMO have nothing to do with each other.

Oh come on, don't be intentionally obtuse.XaiaX that goes for you too Scared

How can we have a war with someone if they're not legitimate combatants? Either it's a fucking war and they're an army we treat like an army, or they're international criminals and we treat them like criminals.

In case you hadn't noticed (which is a ridiculous idea, since you're willfully misinterpreting statements to make yourself not look like a fascist traitor) the war we were talking about in that thread, vis a vis McCain vs. Obama was Iraq.

Don't let that stop you from ranting about how awesome your secret prison is and how we should just listen to our nice overlords that want to protect us from knowing what the hell they're actually doing.

I'm a fan of transparent government, and of a justice system that's actually interested in justice. Fair trials must be open, and I'm immediately suspect of anyone and anything that subverts one of the founding principles of our nation.

In case you didn't read the thread, which I suspect you didn't, I commented I wouldn't give any money to McCain. Someone asked why, I said his stance on GTMO. Someone else asked what was wrong with his stance, and I gave my opinion, and things went from there. Iraq isn't a reason why I won't give money to McCain, and I don't believe I commented on it in the thread.

As for the rest, your f'n opinion is uninformed. Transparent government is great, but there are good reasons for secret classifications and national security measures are important. Read the links I posted in the previous thread from McCarthey and his prosecution of the Blind Sheik. There is some interesting stuff in there that might open your f'n eyes.

quote:

How can we have a war with someone if they're not legitimate combatants? Either it's a fucking war and they're an army we treat like an army, or they're international criminals and we treat them like criminals.

Binary Thinker! Binary Thinker!

Seriously, why should people who fight in the manner of soldiers yet hide among civilians in open regard of the rules of war deserve the protections of the GC (i.e. no interrogations, just name, rank, and serial numbers, along with other higher rights than Art 3) or the legal rights of American citizens?

After all attacking a sovereign nation and killing innocent civilians as long as your quest for revenge is completed.

It's a real bummer when people get caught in the crossfire, but frankly I'm all for killing AQ bigwigs wherever they hide, under the skirt of a sovereign nation or not.

And Pakistan is hardly an innocent party in the situation anyway, sorry.

I seem to recall the Taliban got their start with more than a little help from the ISI. I seem to recall a certain General Mahmud Ahmed getting relieved of his post leading that same ISI after it was discovered he'd wired $100k to Mohammad Atta shortly before 911...

To the extent that Pakistan is unable/unwilling to pursue agents of AQ (an organization which recently attacked the world's most absurdly well-armed country) now operating from it's territory, incursions into said territory are as inevitable as the rain.

Oh come on, don't be intentionally obtuse.XaiaX that goes for you too Scared

How can we have a war with someone if they're not legitimate combatants? Either it's a fucking war and they're an army we treat like an army, or they're international criminals and we treat them like criminals.

None of this orwellian happy horseshit.

Eh, it is a gray area. How does one apply rules created for a uniformed military force representing a nation to a non-uniformed terrorist group not representing a nation?

It's a gray area, and I understand that.

My issue is how this gray area is getting handled. We're being so underhanded about it, almost taking pleasure in finding loopholes.

Wasn't Afghanistan a NATO/UN deal? It's not as if the US solely attacked Afghanistan, if I remember correctly. And yeah, I've got no real sympathy for the Taliban, so whatever.

NATO has been there for a while in the form of ISAF (International security assistance force) or (I sunbathe at Fobs -- Germany, I'm looking at you) and actually runs most of the security appartus for the country. Us, the Brits, Canucks, Aussies, and the Dutch do most of the heavy lifting, although Sarko has sent about 1200 extra French troops in to pacify Kapisa. The rest are in support roles. Poland does a good job of demining parts of the country, but many countries have asinine restrictions on their troops that make them less than 100% useful.

Originally posted by pieguy3141:This, BTW, is also why I'm not 100% against the Iraq deal too. Saddam... ain't a good guy.

There are plenty of not so good guys running countries that the US has no interest in toppling.

I think we were trying to leave Iraq out of this. Frankly, it's a much more interesting conversation without it, because Iraq, imo, is indefensible. Remove Iraq from the equation and it becomes pretty fascinating.

How can we have a war with someone if they're not legitimate combatants? Either it's a fucking war and they're an army we treat like an army, or they're international criminals and we treat them like criminals.

Again your argument is largely semantic hooey.

Do you really think we can send in the FBI or something? Wait until the Taliban were somehow politely haraunged into signing the extradition paperwork?

Can I get some of what you're smoking? Cause it's clearly better than the stuff I can get And I live in fucking Ocean Beach

War was the only practical way of apprehending the criminals who attacked us, because they were operating with the goodwill and support of the Taliban, the closest thing the country had to a government at the time.

Sorry, I was 100% against the Iraq War from well before it started, can't stand Bush, etc... but I have absolutely no moral problems with our invasion of Afghanistan.

Frankly if we hadn't, and had followed some kind of purely legalistic course, we would have been effectively declaring to every party on the planet with a grudge against us (justified or not): "Go ahead! Attack our cities! Kill thousands of our citizens. Rest assured, we won't respond with anything but lawyers bearing writs!"

Yeah, I'd appreciate it if we could shift Iraq to its own 260 page monstrosity. I've never been deployed to Iraq, although my brother's stationed there currently. I have read plenty of information on both sides of the eisle but there's no reason to discuss it here. Afghanistan has gotten the back burner from the Bush administration, the media, and the Soapbox. Let's give it some attention in this thread.

After all attacking a sovereign nation and killing innocent civilians as long as your quest for revenge is completed.

It's a real bummer when people get caught in the crossfire, but frankly I'm all for killing AQ bigwigs wherever they hide, under the skirt of a sovereign nation or not.

So, if AQ had been attacking a specific individual who they considered a terrorist or otherwise big-wig criminal or overall bad person who happened to be occupying the WTC on 11 Sept. 2001 (though they weren't sure which building so better to take them both out) and all the rest who died were just "caught in the crossfire", you would be generally for it but consider it a bummer? Are you fucking kidding me?

So, if AQ had been attacking a specific individual who they considered a terrorist or otherwise big-wig criminal or overall bad person who happened to be occupying the WTC on 11 Sept. 2001

AQ isn't a nation state. It isn't recognized by the UN or other bodies. And let's face it, there's a huge (props to Xaix) f'n difference between our country and ideals and their organization and what they stand for. I want to C/K every member of Al Qaeda and make sure their ideology is marginalized.

If Russia or China (or probably even France) had experienced the same kind of attack, Afghanistan would be a radioactive wasteland, and ISI headquarters would be a smoking hole in the ground. I wouldn't have necessarily approved, but I wouldn't climb up on my high horse and pretend to be shocked either.

2) They weren't. They were simply trying to kill as many civilians as they thought they could.

Technically, we actually did give the Taliban the option of handing over Bin Laden and the AQ leadership, IIRC.

Eh, it is a gray area. How does one apply rules created for a uniformed military force representing a nation to a non-uniformed terrorist group not representing a nation?

Don't.

Treat them as criminals, because that's what they fucking are.

quote:

Do you really think we can send in the FBI or something? Wait until the Taliban were somehow politely haraunged into signing the extradition paperwork?

Uh, politely, but we need a little history here.

I was calling for working to get rid of the g'damn Taliban in the 90s back when they were just jackasses blowing up Buddhist statues and being general asshat oppressives. No one gave a shit until they finally attacked us directly. Then we decided "oh, hey, maybe these guys are a problem?" When they were just oppressing the locals, it was all the big "we're not the world's police" speech, which apparently means "we won't take any sort of action of any kind to do anything about it since they're way the hell over there."

The only thing I really want different in that conflict is actual fucking trials not held in a secret military prison. Secret trials are the most ridiculously anti freedom act that we can perform as a nation. It is anathema to our purported ideals. It cannot stand.

Then, they decided to apply the "stop it before it starts" logic that they fucking ignored when creating the damn Taliban (hello? The 80's called, they want their retarded f'n anti-soviet-at-any-cost-regardless-of-the-eventual-outcome plans back, and they can f'n have 'em) to invade a country we'd already been in, on magic bullshit charges anyone who was paying attention could see were completely fabricated attempts to convince us to engage in premeditated war, and those same fuckers are now telling me I should just trust them when they want to have secret tribunals?

Technically, we actually did give the Taliban the option of handing over Bin Laden and the AQ leadership, IIRC.

You are correct:

quote:

The United States respects the people of Afghanistan -- after all, we are currently its largest source of humanitarian aid -- but we condemn the Taliban regime. (Applause.) It is not only repressing its own people, it is threatening people everywhere by sponsoring and sheltering and supplying terrorists. By aiding and abetting murder, the Taliban regime is committing murder.

And tonight, the United States of America makes the following demands on the Taliban: Deliver to United States authorities all the leaders of al Qaeda who hide in your land. (Applause.) Release all foreign nationals, including American citizens, you have unjustly imprisoned. Protect foreign journalists, diplomats and aid workers in your country. Close immediately and permanently every terrorist training camp in Afghanistan, and hand over every terrorist, and every person in their support structure, to appropriate authorities. (Applause.) Give the United States full access to terrorist training camps, so we can make sure they are no longer operating.

These demands are not open to negotiation or discussion. (Applause.) The Taliban must act, and act immediately. They will hand over the terrorists, or they will share in their fate.

I was calling for working to get rid of the g'damn Taliban in the 90s back when they were just jackasses blowing up Buddhist statues and being general asshat oppressives. No one gave a shit until they finally attacked us directly.

Well bully for you. Funny you should mention that -- I think everyone should read this thread, which took place mere days before 9/11, and contrast some poster's defense of the TB before we were hurt.

quote:

The only thing I really want different in that conflict is actual fucking trials not held in a secret military prison. Secret trials are the most ridiculously anti freedom act that we can perform as a nation. It is anathema to our purported ideals. It cannot stand.

Uh, no it isn't. From Washington to Lincoln to FDR, these types of people have not received the same rights as American citizens. Even the Nuremburg trials didn't give their defendants the rights of American citizens. It will stand, and it is standing now.

quote:

(hello? The 80's called, they want their retarded f'n anti-soviet-at-any-cost-regardless-of-the-eventual-outcome plans back, and they can f'n have 'em)

Hello, the f'n people we supported during the war weren't OBL and they weren't f'n Mullah f'n Omar. To be fair, Haqqani and Hekmateyar were half way supported and they are our enemies, although the HIG was anti- f'n TB at one point. Massoud did give us a good warning though.

quote:

Fuck.

You.

Learn. F'n. You. The TB was a creation 6-7 f'n years after we abandoned Afghanistan.

quote:

actual fucking trials not held in a secret military prison.

GTMO is hardly a secret f'n prison. You know where it is don't you? You know who is interned there don't you?

So, if AQ had been attacking a specific individual who they considered a terrorist or otherwise big-wig criminal or overall bad person who happened to be occupying the WTC on 11 Sept. 2001

AQ isn't a nation state. It isn't recognized by the UN or other bodies. And let's face it, there's a huge (props to Xaix) f'n difference between our country and ideals and their organization and what they stand for.

Ah, so then I guess it doesn't matter how many civilians we kill in the process of taking them out. Because we don't target civilians. We just kill them in the crossfire.

Well bully for you. Funny you should mention that -- I think everyone should read this thread, which took place mere days before 9/11, and contrast some poster's defense of the TB before we were hurt.

I bit. What was your point? Some people in that thread defended the Taliban's right to enforce their own laws in their own country. For some reason we're supposed to compare that situation with the Taliban's role in AQ's attack of our country? WTF?